Apple's tax debacle in Ireland James G.S. Yang and Leonard J. Lauricella
By: Yang, James G. S
.
Contributor(s): Lauricella, Leonard J.
Material type: 
ArticlePublisher: 2017Subject(s): EMPRESAS MULTINACIONALES | IMPUESTOS | GASTOS FISCALES | AYUDA ESTATAL | INCUMPLIMIENTO DEL DERECHO COMUNITARIO | TAX RULINGS | IRLANDA | UNION EUROPEA
In:
Journal of Taxation of Investments v. 34, n. 3, Spring 2017, p. 15-28Summary: On August 30, 2016, the European Commission (the Commission) concluded that Apple Inc. had been granted tax benefits by Ireland that gave it a competitive advantage over other businesses. The Commission claimed that this was aviolation of European Union (E.U.) state aid rules, and the government of Ireland was ordered to collect from Apple up to .13 billion plus interest (approximately $14.3 billion) representing an underpayment of tax for the period from 2003 until 2014. The crux of the Commission.s argument was the impact of two rulings by Ireland that had the effect of allowing Apple to earn large amounts of incomein Europe that was not subject to tax in any jurisdiction. This was deemed to be a violation of the principle that a state has the right to tax income earned within its jurisdiction measured under an arm.s-length principle. The authors describe Apple's operations in Europe and how it was able to achieve such tax favorable results. They then discuss the Commission.s attack on Apple's structure, and Apple's potential defense.
| Item type | Current location | Home library | Call number | Status | Date due | Barcode |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IEF | OP 235/2017/34/3-1 (Browse shelf) | Available | OP 235/2017/34/3-1 |
Disponible también en línea a través de la Biblioteca del Instituto de Estudios Fiscales. Resumen. Conclusión.
On August 30, 2016, the European Commission (the Commission) concluded that Apple Inc. had been granted tax benefits by Ireland that gave it a competitive advantage over other businesses. The Commission claimed that this was aviolation of European Union (E.U.) state aid rules, and the government of Ireland was ordered to collect from Apple up to .13 billion plus interest (approximately $14.3 billion) representing an underpayment of tax for the period from 2003 until 2014. The crux of the Commission.s argument was the impact of two rulings by Ireland that had the effect of allowing Apple to earn large amounts of incomein Europe that was not subject to tax in any jurisdiction. This was deemed to be a violation of the principle that a state has the right to tax income earned within its jurisdiction measured under an arm.s-length principle. The authors describe Apple's operations in Europe and how it was able to achieve such tax favorable results. They then discuss the Commission.s attack on Apple's structure, and Apple's potential defense.
There are no comments for this item.